Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nathan Drake (character)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:35, 27 January 2010.

Nathan Drake (character)

 * Nominator(s): Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my estimation, this article has enough real-world information, creation, reception, etc. I also feel it meets the FA criteria. The article received a peer review, and I have addressed issues raised there. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments --an odd name 10:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dates are consistent Day Month Year.
 * I changed a sentence in "Reception", but it still has the part "Nolan North voices both Drake and The Prince in the 2008 video game Prince of Persia", which is confusing because it might be read as though both characters were in Prince of Persia (or maybe they were!?). I'm not sure how to improve it.
 * I have rewritten the sentence for clarity: "North, who plays Drake, also voices The Prince in the 2008 video game Prince of Persia, and comparisons have been made between the two characters." Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaning support many of my concerns from the peer review have been addressed, some remain. I'll perform my own copyedit this weekend. I am still no convinced File:Nathan Drake concept art.png is needed, as "didn't change much in concepts" is easily conveyed with words alone. I'll take a look and see if there might be free images, of some of the creatives mentioned or otherwise, that could be added, and I'll also check for some additional sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems Jappalang took care of your concern over the image by replacing it with a free image of Johnny Knoxville. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On further close inspection, I'm going to have to oppose for now (cr. 1). The prose isn't there, in terms of grammar or in terms of pure content and context. I've added inline notes to the design section explaining some of my issues. Basically, the same words are repeated over and over again, but there's no real content being related; I don't know if this is a writing issue or a problem with the sources, but the prose as currently written is a bunch of similar glittering generalities strung together with quotes. I don't know the specifics of most of what they're saying, and there's not enough introduction for some of the games and people. Ex: "...making him more believable and giving him more realistic hair,[19] while also developing the character further." tells me very little. How was he more believable? How was his character further developed (and in what way?) I suspect the section could be condensed down by one or two paragraphs; you need to practice better synthesis of information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have requested a copyedit from two members of the Guild of Copyeditors. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been copyedited by two members of the Guild, and I believe the issues with the prose have been resolved. It has been clarified that the believability relates to his reactions with the environment, lines, and rendering. Also, the "develop" sentences have been entirely reworked for specifics. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Having read through the article, the peer review and the assosciated changes, I support this candidacy. Since it's creation it's improved leaps and bounds with every edit. RWJP (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Strong oppose On sources What makes these reliable? Some used multiple times or different refs.
 * http://www.gamezone.com/news/09_21_07_02_10PM.htm
 * http://bitmob.com/index.php/mobfeed/uncharted-2-deconstructing-nathan-drake.html
 * http://games.venturebeat.com/2009/09/16/with-uncharted-2-game-developers-shoot-for-a-movie-like-blockbuster/
 * http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4191/reflecting_on_uncharted_2_how_.php
 * http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=536
 * http://www.doublefine.com/news/ (also link does not refer to cited info)
 * http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/07/lots-of-uncharted-2-among-thieves-at-comic-con/ (not affiliated with Sony)
 * http://www.psu.com/In-the-Spotlight--Nathan-Drake--a0008427-p0.php

RB88 (T) 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly all web-only works in the reflist are in italics. Please remove the italics in every non-print instance.
 * If you're going to include both work and publisher, do it for all refs or none.


 * Comment - Do you know how to remove the italics? It seems the cite web template puts them in automatically, so I am not aware of how to fix it. Perhaps I can alleviate both concerns at once by moving all of the "work" parameters to "publisher" parameter; I believe that would fix it, but I am not positive. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment, they're like this: |work=Source A|publisher=Source B|. So, put both in the same field with a full stop so that web-only sources don't get to be italics: |publisher=Source A. Source B| RB88 (T) 05:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation on how to do it. Both of your concerns over ref formatting should be taken care of now. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)



Alright: here goes. (Thank you for the clarification on your request by the way)
 * No worries. Next time, it might be worth asking me or Ealdgyth during the peer review stage so that things are ironed out before. RB88 (T) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gamezone: entry here details the sizeable number of scholarly works which have used the site as a source, including publications from major research universities.
 * I'll leave this out for reviewers to decide. I lean slightly reliable. RB88 (T) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the Bitmob entry, I am not using the source based on the credentials of the site, but the credentials of the author, Dan Hsu. He has been the editor for a number of high-quality reliable sources, including 1UP.com and the magazine Electronic Gaming Monthly. He has been covering the industry since the early 1990s. He has been quoted in the New York Times and USA Today.
 * The New York Times republishes various stories from Venturebeat on their online edition under agreement with the site. Some examples can be found here. Notice that on the left side of the article, the NYT also provides direct links to stories on the site, endorsing the content contained within.
 * United Business Media, publisher of numerous print sources as well, owns and operates Gamasutra. Further, in this FA nom, consensus seems to have been that Gamasutra, as a reliable source, should have been used to replace info from unreliable sources, and other character FAs, like Master Chief (Halo), use it as a source.
 * Shacknews has a full-time staff of paid, professional journalists who have written for other sites which are considered reliable sources, like GameDaily.. Publications from Pennsylvania State University have cited the site as a source:. Google also tells me that a Boston College Law School used the site as a source here.
 * Since Doublefine is merely being used as a reference that the man who wrote it said something, it should qualify under the WP:RS section about self-published sources. In particular, this quote: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Notice that the site is only being used to cite a quote made by the author of the post IN the post cited. Other, reliable sources establish the importance of the statement, so all the site is used for is to reference the original statement. Also, I have fixed the link here so it points to the correct place; sorry for any inconvenience that mistake may have caused.
 * Leaving this out for editors. For the record, I'm impartial. RB88 (T) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The PlayStation Blog is indeed affiliated with Sony, as Sony owns the base url of http://www.us.playstation.com/ also the Terms of Service for the site give this instruction that it is indeed owned by SCEA: "Don’t forget that you are legally obligated to the Terms of Service noted below as well as to any other agreements, terms and rules that we tell you apply to your use of our Sites. // Please don’t use our Sites if you don’t agree to these Terms of Service because once you are on our Sites, you have to follow the rules.  SCEA and its subsidiaries, representatives and agents that assist in operating our Sites reserve the right to temporarily or permanently disable access to the Sites for anyone who violates these Terms of Service.  Because of the importance of these Terms of Service, we will disable access to the Sites at our discretion and may do so without notice" (emphasis mine).
 * I believe you were correct about the PSU reference, so I have removed it from the article.
 * What did you replace it with? RB88 (T) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not replace it with anything, as the information from it was comparing Drake to Indiana Jones, which several more reliable sources in the article do as well. I felt it unnecessary to replace; the quote was a nice one, but the other sources make the point without it. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this analysis helps. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It did help thanks. Please also sort out the two formatting issues I have pointed out as well. RB88 (T) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As stated above, that has been taken care of too. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.